BACHRAJ BENGANI ALIAS B R JAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal filed under Section 34 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (for short 'POTA') the short question for consideration is whether an appeal under the said Section is maintainable against an order framing charge in a trial conducted according to the procedure prescribed under the POTA ?

(2.) In view of the fact that the issue involved for determination is purely legal, we deem it unnecessary to narrate the facts in detail or to go into the evidence, on consideration whereof the learned Designated Court, New Delhi has found it to be a fit case for framing of charge against the petitioner. To appreciate the background in which the aforesaid controversy has arisen, a brief reference to the facts would suffice. These are as under: Information was received from central intelligence agencies some time in June 2002 that a Pak based terrorist organisation Lashkar-e-Toiba had planned to conduct terrorist activities in India . As per the information, one militant of the said organisation, namely, Mohd. Ayub Mir, had come to Delhi to collect funds for the terrorist organisation, sent through hawala. The information was further developed and on 2 July 2002 the said Mohd. Ayub Mir was found receiving payment of Rs. 7 lakhs from one Harbans Singh near Central Park, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Both of them were arrested and interrogated. Harbans Singh disclosed that he had been directed by his employer namely, Bachraj Bengani @ B.R. Jain, the petitioner herein, to deliver the said money to Mohd. Ayub Mir. On the basis of confessional statements and some other documents, recovered during the course of follow up actions, the petitioner was arrested on 2 September 2002. His interrogation revealed his connections with some London based persons. On completion of investigations and after obtaining sanction of the Central Government under Section 50 of POTA, a challan was filed against the petitioner and two others. Vide order dated 13 January 2003, the learned Designated Court has framed charges against all the three persons. The validity of this order is sought to be challenged in this appeal.

(3.) Initially the said order was challenged by means of a Criminal Revision petition filed under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'). However, subsequently an application was moved seeking permission to treat the revision petition as an appeal under Section 34 of POTA, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 31 January 2003. That is how the matter is now before the Division Bench in terms of sub-section 2 of Section 34 of the POTA.